counsel for lifemark testified that this was a -- quote -- "resounding loss for lifemark." and lifemark appealed judge porteous's decision to the fifth circuit court of appeals. in august of 2002, the fifth circuit reversed judge porteous's decision in most significant aspects. in doing so the fifth circuit characterized various aspects of judge porteous's ruling as inexplicable. constructed entirely out of whole cloth, absurd, close to being nonsensical, and not supported by law. after the case was reversed, the fifth circuit by the fifth circuit and sent back to judge porteous, the parties settled because lifemark understandably did not want to go back before judge porteous. article ii, judge porteous' relationship with bail monthman louis -- bondsman marcotte. first, let me briefly describe how the bail bonds business worked in jefferson parish. from the financial perspective of bail bondsman louis marcotte, he would make no money if the judge set bond so high that the prisoner or family do not afford to pay the premium or if a judge set bond so low that the premium was

counsel for lifemark testified that this was a -- quote -- "resounding loss for lifemark." and lifemark appealed judge porteous's decision to the fifth circuit court of appeals. in august of 2002, the fifth circuit reversed judge porteous's decision in most significant aspects. in doing so the fifth circuit characterized various aspects of judge porteous's ruling as inexplicable. constructed entirely out of whole cloth, absurd, close to being nonsensical, and not supported by law. after the case was reversed, the fifth circuit by the fifth circuit and sent back to judge porteous, the parties settled because lifemark understandably did not want to go back before judge porteous. article ii, judge porteous' relationship with bail monthman louis -- bondsman marcotte. first, let me briefly describe how the bail bonds business worked in jefferson parish. from the financial perspective of bail bondsman louis marcotte, he would make no money if the judge set bond so high that the prisoner or family do not afford to pay the premium or if a judge set bond so low that the premium was

increase lifemark transparency for the smooth operation of the lifemark. there'll be a flat rate of 1% of all residential property transactions up to the value of 1 million your nose to percent apply in above 1 million year ago. in line with the base broadening approach in this budget, and abolishing all existing relief and extension of the residential property. this means one per cent will be paid on all residential property sales, new or old. the system has been in place since the of the previous fall little ones it would have lessened the effect of tax rates in the boom and bust we've seen in the lifemark. the information gathered in the new regime can be used to compile data on house valuations to inform a dalia region database. this database will bring a far greater degree of transparency to the operation of the housing lifemark the and has been previously have said. markets operate best when the buyers and sellers rely on the information available to them. the new rates will apply to the property transfers on or after today. the transition proficient

counsel for lifemark testified this was a "resounding loss for lifemark and lifemark repealed the decision to the 5th circuit court of appeals." they reversed the decision in most significant aspects. in doing so, the 5th circuit characterized various aspects of judge porteous' ruling as inexplicable and constructed entirely out of whole cloth absurd close to being nonsensical, and not supported by law. after the case was reversed by the 5th circuit and sent back to judge porteous, the parties settled because lifemark didn't want to go back before judge porteous. article ii. judge porteous' relationship with bail bondsman louis marcotte and his sister, lori it is important to begin with the state court judge. first, i'll briefly describe how the bail bonds business worked in the par parrish. louis marcotte would make no money if the judge set bonds so high if the prisoner or family could not afford to pay the premium or if the bond was so low the premium was an insignificant sum. what m marcotte wanted was for a bopped to be set at the max yum amount to pay the premium typically 10% of the

schiff noted, lifemark's counsel filed a motion to recuse judge porteous.lifemark argued that the timing of known close friends of judge porteous entering this complex case raised suspicions about the integrity of the process. lifemark's attorney, joseph mole, had no idea that amato had, in fact, in partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $20,000 in cash. in october, 1996, judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark's recusal motion. it is worth going through what happened at that recusal hearing in a little bit of detail. at the recusal hearing judge porteous described his relationship with amato and levinson as follows. quote, if anyone wants to decide whether i'm a friend with mr. amato or mr. levinson, i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together probably 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have you ever been to either one of they're house the answer is definitive no. have i gone along to lunch with them the answer is a

he was assigned to the lifemark case. he went to the brother of the magistrate and this is the former jefferson parish attorney. he was known as someone who could solve problems like this. he was known as the go-to guy to fix a problem with a judge who didn't want. wilkinson is now reportedly under investigation for corruption in louisiana. so mole met with him and then wilkinson got mole to meet with one of judge porteous's closest friends, don gardner. and he went to gardner and offered him an extraordinary contract which we have put in the record. that contract promised mol mole $100,000 if he joined the case. and offered him another $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself. $200,000. but that was not all. the contract actually said, by the way, once porteous is gone, you're gone. so if you get him to recuse yourself, i'll give him dz -- i'll give you $200,000 and you go away and we can go perly on bouncing this case through the court system. the problem with this scheme by mr. mole is that it didn't work be

that did not sit well with lifemark or its lead counsel, mr. joe mole eric while judge porteous confirmed his close relationship with plaintiff counsel and the subsequent recusal hearing, he stated that he did not do that relationship as a barrier to his ruling family. and by the way, i also would like you to read that hearing transcript i didn't see them counted on people. what i did see at the end of the transcript was his working with mr. mole to make sure that mr. mole had everything he needed to appeal him to the fifth circuit. i commend that transcript to you to read, and you can decide he was preventing it -- presenting it more fairly -- very. indeed, you'll hear from witnesses that judge porteous' response to the recusal motion was consistent with his practice and those of his colleagues of his former state courthouse in gretna. he had been a judge for 10 years in gretna. it was common for judges to hear cases argued by friends, and recusals recurred since most of judges and lawyers in that small legal community grew up with each other

that is the lifemark case. then, in 1996, it was randomly e assigned to judge porteous, andn defense witnesses stated when asked that judge porteous had ag reputation for moving pieces to verdict. judge he was a judge from gretna, a state judge, lawyers judge. they tended to get cases done, and when he looked at the dockew and salles a dozen judges in and out of this case and no trial,tm he probably announced to the i party's claim the last judge yog were going oito see in this case and we are going to try thishe case. now i want to emphasize something. he said that to the partiesny before any friends or lawyers i, before anyone that he had a ae friendship was counseling the tt case. in he said i will be the last judge in this case and we are going to go to trial. so he was. seven district court judges, three magistrates, and he endedo that. and they went to trial. now, when he said that, the lead counsel for lifemark, joe mole e wanted to have him to recuse anr go to yet another judge and he filed a motion to

we can disagree with judge porteous' decision to remain in lifemark. but judge porteous had good reason to refuse to kick this case down the road to a 14th judge. when you look at that docket, most judges would view that docket as a mockery. someone is gaming the system. you cannot burn through 14 judges in three years. you will hear that judge porteous had a reputation for stopping this type of thing. for moving dockets along and resolving cases. and by the way, if you look at that docket you can tell, a lot of the judges were more than eager to get rid of this case. it was highly complex. perhaps one of the most complex cases i have ever seen. ultimately, this spellbindingly legal complex case was decided by the judge. and by the way, the fifth circuit reversed in part and they upheld in part. but they disagree with the judges were. this was a texas panel. they disagreed with judge porteous on a rather arcane aspect of louisiana will -- law. i'm not going to explain that arcane louisiana law anymore than mr. schiff did. for one simple reason. i am no

in october, 1996, judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark recusal motion.escribed his relationship with amato and pleasants and as follows. quote, if anyone wants to decide if i'm a friend with mr. amato reluctance and i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative yes. mr. amato and i practice law to give the public 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, quote coming this mr. amato and mr. levenson our friends of mine. have i ever been to either one of their houses? the answer is a definitive no. how far gone along to lunch with him? the answer is a definitive yes. have i been going to lunch with all the members of the bar? the answer is yes. in short, at the hearing judge porteous portrait his relationship with amato as simply the same sort of an exceptional relationship he would have had with any member of the bar limited to having, quote come and gone to lunch with him. even that is misleading because the evidence will show judge porteous had in fact accepted hundreds of meals at a expensive restaurants from amato without for supporting.

that did not sit well with lifemark or lead counsel. while judge porteous confirmed his close relationship with plaintiff counsel in a subsequent recusal hearing, he stated that he did not view that relationship as a barrier to his ruling fairly. and by the way, i also would like you to read that hearing transcript. i didn't see him pouncing on people. what i saw at the end of the transcript was his working with mr. mull to make sure he had everything to appeal him to the 5th circuit. i commend you that trance script for you to read and you can decide who presented it fairly. you can hear from witnesses that judge porteous' response to the recusal motion was consistent with his practice and those of his colleagues in his former state courthouse in gretna. he had been a judge for 10 years there. it was common for judges to hear cases argued by friends, and recusals rarely occurred since most judges and lawyers in that small legal community grew up with each other or knew each other. it would shut down small town courts if judges rescued

judge porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the lifemark v. liljeberg bench trial and while he had the case under advisement in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both amato and his law partner creely including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash. thereafter and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys after mat toe an amato and creef cash and other things of value, judge porteous ruled in favor of their client, liljeberg. by virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a federal judge, judge porteous brought this court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office federal judge. wherefore, judge george thomas porteous jr. is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. the president pro tempore: the chair will read for the benefit of everyone present in the chamber and in the galleries paragraph i of rule 19 of the standing rules of the senate, which states as